Player Discussion Jake Sanderson (D) PART 3

[CanadianHockey]

Don't care if Sanderson didn't get Norris recognition. Quietly blossoming as a number one is fine by me

 

[BankStreetParade]

Don't care if Sanderson didn't get Norris recognition. Quietly blossoming as a number one is fine by me

If we're playing a game of any meaningful consequence, I would want Sanderson 100 times out of 10 over Hutson. It's not even close. Sanderson is nearing the true top 10 D in the game. Probably already there defensively and certainly on his way offensively. If you polled GMs, I'd be surprised if a single one of them (yes, including Montreal's) took Hutson over Sanderson.

 

[Cosmix]

Hutson is a better bet to rack up points. That has always mattered more to voters than defensive game.

Yes indeed. There is nothing wrong with racking up points; but there is something wrong with giving up a lot though.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Yes indeed. There is nothing wrong with racking up points; but there is something wrong with giving up a lot though.

It's the Karlsson effect. You can be mediocre defensively if you're a PPG guy.

If you're putting up 60ish points and still a minus player...that's not so good.

 

[Agent Zub]

Travis Hamonic singlehandedly wrecked Sandersons Norris chances.

 

[Agent Zub]

Also Lane Hutson was the most or second most important player in getting a rebuilding Montreal team into the playoffs.

It was a pretty incredible season even with the warts. I don't grudge him his Norris votes.

Is he a top 10 NHL d? Of course not. Was he a top 10 most valuable to his team defenceman? I'd say yes.

 

[CDN24]

It's the Karlsson effect. You can be mediocre defensively if you're a PPG guy.

If you're putting up 60ish points and still a minus player...that's not so good.

Who is the minus player though.

Hutson was a minus 2 and Sanderson was a minus 14. To be fair we should eliminate the minus that accumulate when a player is on ice for a empty net against.

Jake was on the ice for 11 EN against and 7 for so the minus 14 is really minus 10 if you exclude the EN effect
Hutson was on for 2 for and 14 against with the EN so that minus 2 is really a plus 10 with the EN effect removed.

All that to say both are great D-men and Hutson's defense improved significantly as the year progressed. He was much higher event (for and against) than Jake last season at 5-5. Hutson in 1512 5-5 mins was on for 74 GF and 62 against. Jake in 1337 min was on for 41 Gf and 56 GA

 

[PlayOn]

Who is the minus player though.

Hutson was a minus 2 and Sanderson was a minus 14. To be fair we should eliminate the minus that accumulate when a player is on ice for a empty net against.

Jake was on the ice for 11 EN against and 7 for so the minus 14 is really minus 10 if you exclude the EN effect
Hutson was on for 2 for and 14 against with the EN so that minus 2 is really a plus 10 with the EN effect removed.

All that to say both are great D-men and Hutson's defense improved significantly as the year progressed. He was much higher event (for and against) than Jake last season at 5-5. Hutson in 1512 5-5 mins was on for 74 GF and 62 against. Jake in 1337 min was on for 41 Gf and 56 GA

Dmen like Hutson, Hughes, Makar etc are also getting 60% o-zone starts whereas Sandy gets just above 40%.

So not really a fair comparison as Sanderson is playing much tougher minutes than those guys.

 

[BondraTime]

Sanderson had a very, very rough start at ES.

Pretty sure he was the worst producing regular D on the Sens over the first 2/3 months at 5 v 5, even as he was leading them in points by a substantial amount.

Not sure there is a GM in the league who would take Hutson over Sanderson, but that's not because Hutson isn't a good D, he is an elite one, it's because Sanderson is/will be a Josi type guy over his career. He will be in the top 5/7 guys year in, year out.

 

[Micklebot]

Dmen like Hutson, Hughes, Makar etc are also getting 60% o-zone starts whereas Sandy gets just above 40%.

So not really a fair comparison as Sanderson is playing much tougher minutes than those guys.

It's not just Zone starts, it's who they get put out against too, it's night and day

 

[PlayOn]

It's not just Zone starts, it's who they get put out against too, it's night and day




View attachment 1050814

Figured as much but crazy to see it highlighted like that. Thanks

Also didn’t realize Hughes was used like that too but makes sense given his size

 

[JungleBeat]

You want both on your team. Not one or the other.

 

[Hale The Villain]

It's not just Zone starts, it's who they get put out against too, it's night and day




View attachment 1050814

This really shows why Sanderson's comparatively low even strength production isn't due to a lack of ability but rather his role.

Dude is tasked with shutting down the opposition at even strength and only gets to focus on offense on the man advantage.

 

[jake1]

This really shows why Sanderson's comparatively low even strength production isn't due to a lack of ability but rather his role.

Dude is tasked with shutting down the opposition at even strength and only gets to focus on offense on the man advantage.

And the opposition in his case is McDavid, MacKinnon, Matthews, Crosby and on and on. I might be homering this one, but I'd guess if you asked the elite forwards who should be playing defense in the Olympics, JS would be near the top of the list.